alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE>

EXHIBIT 21



                                           SUBSIDIARIES OF SAUCONY, INC.
<CAPTION>


                                                       Jurisdiction of                  Percentage
               Name                                     Incorporation                    Ownership
               ----                                     -------------                    ---------

<S>                                                     <C>                                <C>
Hyde International Services, Ltd.                       Hong Kong                          100%

Hyde Transition Corp.                                   Massachusetts                      100%

Hyde, Inc.                                              Maine                              100%

Saucony Canada, Inc.(1)                                 Ontario                             85%

Saucony UK, Inc.(1)                                     Massachusetts                      100%

Saucony Sports, B.V.(1)                                 Netherlands                        100%

Saucony SP Pty. Ltd.(1)                                 Australia                          100%

Saucony Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH(1)                   Germany                            100%

Quintana Roo, Inc.(2)                                   Delaware                           100%



----------------------

(1)Does business as "Saucony."
(2)Does business as "Quintana Roo."


</TABLE>
U:\DOCS\pak\Transoce an-Holt-Marino\Affi d Levy 9-6-03 .wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

JOSEPH MARINO : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff : NO. 02-4488 

:

v. :

:

SLS, INC. d/b/a HOLT OVERSIGHT AND :

LOGISTICAL TECHNOLOGIES, ET AL. :

:

 Defendants :

AFFIDAVIT OF MAUREEN A. LEVY

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

VICINAGE OF CAMDEN

Maureen A. Levy, being first duly sworn, deposes and states:

1. I currently reside at 118 Woodland Terrace , Oaklyn, New Jersey, and have lived

there for the last year and one half. 

2. Prior to that time, I was living with my parents, Joseph Levy and Ellen Levy, for the

previous 26 years at 615 Newton Avenue, Oaklyn, NJ. My parents still live at that

address. 

3. I am currently employed as an Operations Coordinator at Miller Environmental Group, 

which is located at 105 Riverview Drive, Paulsboro, New Jersey, and have been

working in this capacity since June 18, 2001. 

4. Prior to this time, I was employed at SLS, Inc. d/b/a Holt Oversight and Logistical

Technologies as a Regulatory Compliance Administrator, from approximately February

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 53-3 Filed 09/09/2003 Page 1 of 2
U:\DOCS\pak\Transoce an-Holt-Marino\Affi d Levy 9-6-03 .wpd

 of 1997 to June 18, 2001.

5. I was never employed by Trans Ocean Maritime Services, Inc. 

6. I was never assigned by SLS, Inc.d/b/a Holt Oversight and Logistical Technologies to

work at Trans Ocean Maritime Services, Inc., nor did I ever have an office there.

7. I was never served with the summons and complaint in this action. I only found out that I

had been sued on August 22, 2003. 

I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the

foregoing statements made by me are wilfully false, I am subject to punishment.

___________________________

Maureen A. Levy 

State of New Jersey

Vicinage of Camden

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally came and appeared Maureen A. Levy, 

personally known to me, who after being duly sworn, did depose and say that the above is true and

correct, and did sign the above statement before me.

________________________

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 53-3 Filed 09/09/2003 Page 2 of 2
### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-01-00543-CV ACandS, Inc., Appell ant

v. Doro thy A. Lehm ann, Individual ly and as Personal Repr esentativ e of the H eirs and Esta te o f Claren ce R. Lehma nn, Dece ased ; Ala n Sw eet en; Eug ene K ana k; James Jones; Jame s Scott; and Henry Taylor , Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT C OURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20th JUDICIAL DIST RICT

NO. 26,342, HONORAB LE ED MAGRE, JUDGE PRESID ING

The parties h

ave f il ed a Join t Mot ion to Dis

mi ss Appe al for Wan t o f F in al ity and we gr ant t heir jo int mo t ion and dismiss for want of jur isdict ion.

The parties al

le ge that the judgme n t in the u nder lyi ng mat t er was intend ed t o be entered i n C aus e No. 26,3 42-A , a

caus e se vered f rom th e ori gi na l l awsui t for pu rposes of tri al
. The origi nal la w suit wa s f

i l ed un de r Ca us e N o. 26 ,34 2. J

udg men t i n th e s evere d c au se

(Ca us e N o. 26, 342 -A) was m

is takenl y s ign ed and en tered under

Cause No. 26,342. There remai n i n the origi nal law su it ot her i ssues an

d parties pend ing befo re t he cour t so that t he j udgment rendered under Cause No. 26,342 is i

nterlocutory and un

appealabl e. The parties reque st that t hi s appeal (f rom Cau se N o. 26, 342 ) be dismissed fo r w ant of finali t y. The par t ies re pr ese nt to this Court that t hey

wil l j ointl y m ove the di strict court to set aside2

the current judgm

ent in Cause No. 26,342 and to rendered judgm ent in Cause No. 26,342-A, after whi ch appella nt Acan dS, Inc. wil

l pe rfect a new

appeal f rom the f i na l j udg men t en tere d i n C au se No. 26, 342 -A. It appe ars to this Cour t that the partie s’ req uest i s wel

l -taken. Tex . R. App. P. 42. 1( a) (1 ). Acco rd ingly, the insta nt app eal is dismissed for want of jur isdict ion.

Lee Yeakel, Justice Be f ore: Ju sti ce s K i dd, Ye akel

an d Pa tters on Di sm i ss ed f or Wan t of Ju ri sd i cti on File d: Decem

ber 20, 2001 Do No t Publis

h
Before the Second Division,

June 13, 1963

No. 67813.

#### Arena Cycle Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 323650-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 CCPA 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# Budget Bal Sheet

DRAFT	

DRAFT&"Calibri,Bold Italic"This schedule is for Credit Reform activity only. 	&P of &N	September 2020

# Footnotes

DRAFT	

DRAFT&"Calibri,Bold Italic"This schedule is for Credit Reform activity only. 	&P of &N	July 2018
f8k063008ex10iii_ea2bcc.htm


     

     

    Bedminster
Capital Corp.

    
      
        

      

    

    90
Washington Valley Road ·
Bedminster ·
NJ  07921 ·
Telephone (908) 719-8941

    


    


    


    


    June 30 ,
2008

     

     

    The
Management Agreement between Apogee Holdings Inc. ( Apogee) and Bedminster
Capital Corp. ( BCC) dated March 1 , 2007 is hereby terminated by the parties
effective today.    Apogee agrees to waive all outstanding
amounts owed to it under the Agreement.

     

     

     

     

     

    BEDMINSTER
CAPITAL
CORP.                                        APOGEE
HOLDINGS INC.

     

     

     

    __________________________                                     
__________________________

     

    Paul
Patrizio   ,  CEO                                                                Paul
Patrizio,  President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,997
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,678
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   996
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    178,162
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           9,458
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             9,012
<LOANS>                                        221,409
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 444,741
<DEPOSITS>                                     224,656
<SHORT-TERM>                                   166,320
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,801
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               69
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  47,964
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,610
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,866
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                15,475
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,869
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,835
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,640
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 394
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,822
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,848
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,848
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   7.376
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,461
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,461
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,643
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       48
<RECOVERIES>                                         5
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,600
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,600
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1621 

AN ACT 

To require the Federal Communications Commission to establish a methodology for the collection by the Commission of information about commercial mobile service and 

commercial mobile data service, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 1621 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Wireless Access 

3 Act of 2017’’. 

4 SEC. 2. METHODOLOGY FOR COLLECTION OF MOBILE 

5 SERVICE COVERAGE DATA. 

6 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

7 (1) the term ‘‘commercial mobile data service’’ 

8 has the meaning given the term in section 6001 of 

9 the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act 

10 of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1401); 

11 (2) the term ‘‘commercial mobile service’’ has 

12 the meaning given the term in section 332(d) of the 

13 Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d)); 

14 (3) the term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Federal 

15 Communications Commission; 

16 (4) the term ‘‘coverage data’’ means, if com17 mercial mobile service or commercial mobile data 

18 service is available, information about the service, 

19 which may include available speed tiers and perform20 ance characteristics; and 

21 (5) the term ‘‘Universal Service program’’ 

22 means the universal service support mechanisms es23 tablished under section 254 of the Communications 

24 Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) and the regulations 

25 issued under that section. 
3 

†S 1621 ES

1 (b) METHODOLOGY ESTABLISHED.—Not later than 

2 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

3 Commission shall promulgate regulations to establish a 

4 methodology that shall apply to the collection of coverage 

5 data by the Commission for the purposes of— 

6 (1) the Universal Service program; or 

7 (2) any other similar program. 

8 (c) REQUIREMENTS.—The methodology established 

9 under subsection (b) shall— 

10 (1) contain standard definitions for different 

11 speed tiers, such as the 2G, 3G, 4G, and 4G LTE 

12 tiers; 

13 (2) ensure that coverage data is collected in a 

14 consistent and robust way; 

15 (3) improve the validity and reliability of cov16 erage data; and 

17 (4) increase the efficiency of coverage data col18 lection. 

Passed the Senate March 1, 2018. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1621 

AN ACT 

To require the Federal Communications Commisservice, and for other purposes. cial mobile service and commercial mobile data by the Commission of information about commer- sion to establish a methodology for the collection
Order entered February 8, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00046-CV

IN RE MARK SCHWARZ, NEWCASTLE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., 

NEWCASTLE CAPITAL GROUP L.L.C., 

AND GEOWORKS CORPORATION, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-08-00144-M

ORDER

Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Reichek

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relators’ petition for writ of 

mandamus. We LIFT this Court’s January 22, 2019 stay of the trial court’s September 25, 2018 

order. We ORDER relators to bear the costs, if any, of this original proceeding. 

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
----

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Axel Kittel v Belgian State

(Joined Cases C-439/04 and C-440/04) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Deduction of input tax - ‘Carousel’ fraud - Contract of sale incurably void under domestic law)

(2006/C 212/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Axel Kittel (C-439/04) Belgian State (C-440/04)

Defendants: Belgian State (C-439/04) Recolta Recycling SPRL (C-440-04)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Belgian Cour de Cassation — Interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Supplies of goods under a contract of sale which is incurably void — Carousel fraud — Loss of the right to deduct for a purchaser in good faith

Operative part of the judgment

Where a recipient of a supply of goods is a taxable person who did not and could not know that the transaction concerned was connected with a fraud committed by the seller, Article 17 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a rule of national law under which the fact that the contract of sale is void — by reason of a civil law provision which renders that contract incurably void as contrary to public policy for unlawful basis of the contract attributable to the seller — causes that taxable person to lose the right to deduct the value added tax he has paid. It is irrelevant in this respect whether the fact that the contract is void is due to fraudulent evasion of value added tax or to other fraud.

By contrast, where it is ascertained, having regard to objective factors, that the supply is to a taxable person who knew or should have known that, by his purchase, he was participating in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of value added tax, it is for the national court to refuse that taxable person entitlement to the right to deduct.

----

(1)OJ C 6, 08.01.2005.

----
Before the Second Division,

June 11, 1968

No. P68/263.

protest 61/20563 (San Francisco).

#### Dohrmann Commercial Co. and Harper, Robinson & Co. *v.*United States,

Bao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of knives similar in all material respects to those the subject of *National Carloading Corp.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 178, C.D. 2529), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# sec5_sbr_2024

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2023-04	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SBR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout February 15, 2023
<TABLE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 12
                                        INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY
                         COMPUTATIONS OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                     (Dollar Amounts in Millions)

                                                       Years Ended December 31,
<S>                                               <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>
Fixed charges:                                    1999       1998       1997        1996       1995
  <S>                                           <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>
  Interest expense...........................   $204.5     $225.9     $137.5      $120.9     $ 88.3
  Amortization of debt discount and expense..      6.7        7.0        2.0         1.5        0.8
  Rentals (one-third of rentals).............     23.9       23.8       23.3        20.3       19.5
  Capitalized interest.......................      4.0        4.0        3.2         4.6        3.5
  Equity-linked security charges............      25.6       19.7        0.0         0.0        0.0
Total fixed charges..........................   $264.7     $280.4     $166.0      $147.3     $112.1

Net earnings from continuing operations         $544.9     $455.5     $358.6      $324.7     $243.8
Add:   Minority income of majority-
         owned subsidiaries..................     29.1       23.5        3.6         1.5        1.8
       Taxes on income from continuing
         operations..........................    299.9      250.7      219.8       190.7      143.2
       Fixed charges.........................    264.7      280.4      166.0       147.3      112.1
Less:  Capitalized interest..................      4.0        4.0        3.2         4.6        3.5
       Undistributed earnings (losses) from
         less than 50% owned affiliates......      1.7        2.8        7.2        10.1       11.2
Earnings available for fixed charges .......  $1,132.9   $1,003.3     $737.6      $649.5     $486.2

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ..........     4.28       3.58       4.44        4.41       4.34
Undistributed earnings (losses) from less
    than 50% owned affiliates:
  Equity in earnings (losses)............       $  3.9     $  4.0     $  9.3      $ 12.1     $ 13.3
    Less:  Amounts distributed...............      2.2        1.2        2.1         2.0     $  2.1
  Undistributed earnings (losses) from
    less-than 50% owned affiliates...........   $  1.7     $  2.8     $  7.2      $ 10.1     $ 11.2


All amounts have been restated to reflect discontinued operations.
</TABLE>
Refinery ICR Component 2 Reporting Tool

Table Structure for Advanced Data Entry

Table: emissions_inventory_dataEnter data into this table after entering the Facility ID but before entering emissions data by pollutant.Field Name Data Type Size

Instruction 

Number Notes

facility_id Text 255

The entry in this field must EXACTLY match the Facthe PART I form. This field is part of the primary key

emissions_point_id Text 255 1

The entry in this field must be unique for this facility. primary key.

emissions_point_desc Text 255 2unit_id Text 255 3 The Unit ID need not exactly match the Unit IDs enterscc_type_id Text 255 4 The SCC code must EXACTLY match one of the codrelease_type_id Text 255 5 Enter either "point" or "fugitive" to avoid an error.release_height Number Double 6 For point sources, value in feet.internal_vent_diameter Number Double 6 For point sources, value in feet.exit_temperature Number Double 6 For point sources, value in degrees Fahrenheit.gas_flow_rate Number Double 6 For point sources, value in actual cubic feet per minutlength Number Double 7 For fugitive sources, value in feet.width Number Double 7 For fugitive sources, value in feet.angle Number Double 7

For fugitive sources, value in degrees from the North (negative).

latitude Number Double 8longitude Number Double 8comments Text 255 19 Enter comments related to the emissions point.
Refinery ICR Component 2 Reporting Tool

Table Structure for Advanced Data Entry

Table: emissions_inventory_data_pollutantsEnter data into this table after entering the Facility ID and after entering all emissions points.Field Name Data Type Size

Instruction 

Number Notes

facility_id Text 255

The entry in this field must EXACTLY match entered on the PART I form. This field is part 

emissions_point_id Text 255 1

The entry in this field must be unique for this fof the primary key.

pollutant_code Text 255 10

The SCC code must EXACTLY match one of tlist. This field is part of the primary key.

emissions_2010 Number Double 11estimation_methodology Text 255 12

The methodology must EXACTLY match one  Direct measurements Stack testing Engineering calculations Other

emissions_non_routine_2010 Number Double 13emissions_maximum_hourly Number Double 14annual_emissions_NESHAP Number Double 15hourly_emissions_NESHAP Number Double 16annual_emissions_permit Number Double 17hourly_emissions_permit Number Double 18Comments Memo 19

The memo field has unlimited characters. This comments regarding the emissions of this pollu
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 2SUPPLEMENT	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2025 ReportingSection VII

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2024-03	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII VSR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 2/15/24
Case No. 14,422.

#### UNITED STATES v. ADDATTE.

[6 Blatchf. 76.] 1

Circuit Court. E. D. New York.

March 14. 1868.

Witness — Competency—Wife of Codefendant.

Where one of two defendants, in a joint indictment against the two, is tried separately, the wife of the defendant who is not on trial, is a competent witness for the defendant who is so tried separately.

[A motion in arrest of judgment was granted, and the prisoner was discharged. Case No. 14,-423.]

This was an indictment against the prisoner [John B. Addatte], jointly with another person, for counterfeiting the currency. The other defendant not. being in custody, the case went to trial against the prisoner, separately. On the trial, the wife of the other defendant was offered as a witness for the prisoner, and, on objection, was excluded. The prisoner having been, convicted, a motion was now made for a' new trial, on the ground of error in such ruling.

BENEDICT, District Judge.

I am of the opinion that the ruling at the trial was wrong, and that the witness was improperly excluded. On examining the question, I find the rule to be, that, when trials are separate, the wife may testify in favor of or against any one other than her husband, except in cases where the acquittal of one defendant works the acquittal of the rest, as in cases of conspiracy, and the like. It is not contended, in this case, that the acquittal of the prisoner would work the acquittal of the other defendant, and the wife of the latter was, therefore, a competent witness. The motion for a new trial is granted.